[QUOTE]
[b]John S Stuart wrote: [/b] I think that I may be being stupid here - but this thread is not about Queen, music, traders, hoarders or even myself per se, but about personal troll abuse.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe you shouldn't have started a thread in the Queen Serious Discussion section then? If your post is nothing to do with Queen or music, then it should maybe have been put in the Personal section? Maybe I'm being stupid though.
[QUOTE]
[b]John S Stuart wrote: [/b] [QUOTE] [b]Fireplace wrote:[/b]
[QUOTE] [b]John S Stuart wrote:[/b]
I think that I may be being stupid here - but this thread is not about Queen, music, traders, hoarders or even myself per se, but about personal troll abuse.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps I'm the one being stupid here, but I clearly remember this board being about Queen and music when i joined. When did that change and why wasn't I notified?[/QUOTE]
Good point, succinctly made and I totally agree with you.
My only defence is that this rant was generically aimed at a very few on Queenzone, the board, and the community in general - and that's why I said it. It may be the wrong forum (I appologise for that) but I still think it's the right place.
I far prefer it over here in QZ than on the other channel - but that is my preference. I also don't believe that the abuse should be accepted, tollerated or comes with the territory.
I don't think I can see myself calling anyone a "c*nt" on any public forum, so perhaps I am being over-sensitive, but remember my mum, my kids, my friends, and their friends read this!
I am not after sympathy, support, kudos or anything like that. However, I did politely request the poster to "refine" his post (not delete or censorship) but my request has been declined.
Seeing as how my request has not been granted; I still ask in my own awkward way - while you may agree with the poster - does anyone actually accept that anyone needs this abuse, especially in a forum that is supposed to be fun?
I am not a cry baby, or bleeding heart liberal, but my final point is - should such abuse be tollerated in here (in real life one can always walk away); or by ignoring or just accepting this as the norm - are we are actually approving via inaction?
Again; sorry for the rant. Sorry if this is in the wrong forum, but the printed word is a lot more permanant and unforgiving than an off-the-cuff oral remark.
I agree, we may never play happilly together, one can not please all the people all the time, (so someone is always offended) but the least we can do is show some respect towards each other - or am I really that much out of touch?[/QUOTE]
I'm genuinely shocked at how much you've lost the plot here. You are still ranting about losing your track. The 'abuse' is all secondary and you know it. You're upset because you were duped, it happens to us all, but don't pretend it's to do with the abuse you've had to endure... I reckon you're far thicker skinned than that?
"I am not after sympathy - support, kudos". But that's how it reads. You're friends may say it isn't , but if they were unbiased they'd agree.
[b]Holly2003 wrote: [/b]
Yep capitalism at its ugliest. You pay for and trade music that you didn't create, keep and exploit it until it has no value, and then (sometimes, not always) share it when -- to you -- it has no more value. You mirror the worst aspects of record companies who basically do the same thing. And then when you lose controlover something (as when Fuller leaked The Reaction stuff) you expect sympathy from everyone who doesn't have access to these recordings, and yet is expected to express sympathy otherwise we won't get any more scraps from the table lol! Sorry, I'm too old to play that game. So, once again, thanks for what you've shared, I respect that you've paid for material that you own, and it's a bit shit that someone betrayed your trust and that you are being insulted in the way you claim, but .... let's not have any more of these self-pitying threads please.
-----------------------
Very good reply.
" I'm surprised someone with over 10000 posts on a Queen fan site doesn't understand why someone would pay for Queen material?!?"
Starting your post with the words 'Before the net' was a pretty good way to undermine the rest of it. It might've made sense once upon a time to put money into these things, but now it's different. The actual music industry had to wake up to the internet in order to keep making money; why should the bootleg community expect anything else? The chief difference is that they really shouldn't be making any money in the first place.
"I'm guessing your a financial wizkid the way you've got your head on so straight with money and spending it correctly."
Well apart from some rules I have about never paying for stolen goods, I'm pretty regular with my expenditure.
[QUOTE]
[b]tcc wrote: [/b] Grateful Fan wrote:
For the enrichment of your own private experiences, you keep some of that from people. From me.
______________________________
I think access to rare Queen music here for downloading is a privilege and not a right.
While we admire those who donate their collection for the public to enjoy, we should not cast illwill to those who do not do it. Collecting usually stems from a love for the item. The fact that the collected item went up in value over time is a bonus and is a reflection of the collector's ability to judge the beauty of an item, especially when its creator was relatively not so well-known at that time.[/QUOTE]
Back up there in context where my words belong there was no implication that having access to rare Queen music is a right, right?
Part of my point is that this is all an exceedingly predictable dynamic. The havers and the wanters and all the other actors, the villains, the heros - all playing their parts. People should stop being so pitiably aggrieved and trolling for sympathy and righteous outrage. I don't think it's either nice or acceptable that JSS was called a c*nt. It's unpleasant. I know as I've been addressed that way probably a dozen times by American men on QZ - who given the word's connotations in the society both they and I understand - are bringing an eight inch knife to a nerf ball fight. And yet I've never moaned about it, and I've certainly never indicated I was going to 'call my solicitor'. People understand having and wanting and trust and betrayal. They also understand nonsense, silliness, inflated heads and bullshit. All part of an aforementioned 'human element'. Plenty of 'humanity' going around just lately.
"If your post is nothing to do with Queen or music, then it should maybe have been put in the Personal section?"
*thumbs up*
I used to dabble with collecting but since the internet theres no point. Its all only a matter of time....
Rare vinyl is the only REAL collector items out there.
[QUOTE]
[b]mooghead wrote: [/b] I used to dabble with collecting but since the internet theres no point. Its all only a matter of time....
[/QUOTE]
There was a previous point about ethical similarities with record companies made. A second similarity might be the failure to adequately adapt to a new medium, to refashion goals and expectations and instead cling to draconian rules as a means of control. In the case of sharing perhaps that means a shift in the value to original physical copies of things, or the uncompressed and early gen versions of things rather than the exclusivity of who has laid their ears on any given piece of music. Maybe Fuller has an idea of sorts here...maybe it's okay if hyper compressed YouTube videos and crappy mp3s are out there as a matter of policy given the inevitability of the pressure to leak, and the instant and irreversible and exponential nature of an internet leak, along with the inevitability of emergent and divergent views on what it means to be a collector and a contributor for a generation what was raised on Pirate Bay.
1. This thread would sure make a hell of a better movie than a Freddie Mercury movie starring BORAT
Robert De Niro as John S Stuart and Woody Allen as David Fuller. Taylor Lautner as Hangman Acetate. Let's get it done.
2. What is the difference than this "collector's group" and say what Napster was doing? They got shut down because the artists made no money, right?
3. Someone needs to blow the whistle on the secret society. I want to know if they wear special robes, have rings, etc. There's got to be some great conspiracy type stuff. Perhaps it was a juicy elite club like Eyes Wide Shut. Now that would be awesome.
4. Nothing's gonna change as a result of this happening right? We're still gonna get leaks, Freddie Boxes, etc? I really don't have a problem with either.
5. It's nice to hear some of that rare stuff surface, but are there really people that want to hear EVERY live Queen gig? And then listen to them again and talk about it at Holiday Inn banquet rooms? That's insane.
6. There's some person trying to sell a box that Freddie sat on for $10,000.00. Hey if someone will buy it, then good for the seller!!!
This is in no way intended to support David Fuller because I am simply nowhere near involved enough to make a proper judgement, but have I missed something in the way of proof of the allegations? Just from a logic standpoint, how does an upload with his watermark disprove his stand that he received the work from somebody else? IF true, it's 50/50 whether he'd have uploaded his original or the one he received. It's even possible, though less likely, that he received the trade in a virtual sense - the intent of some other trader to pass it to him - but ultimately not needed as all he was seeking was the 'right' - by his logic - to leak stuff that was circulating outside of the group. If he was as selfishly inclined as is being claimed, why did he decline JSS's invitation to rejoin the group for further benefit? Is it possible we have a competing pair of potentially valid streams of ethical reasoning? Or, once again, have I missed something?
[QUOTE]it pretty much forces those of us who do have some rarities to hold onto them for a while [/QUOTE]
35 years is a long time. As long as your kids will keep your high standards of protocol, then I'm happy my grandson may one day hear Hangman. Perhaps they can have a seance and recall my spirit from the other side so that I to can hear a crappy song that didn't make the cut.
I mean is it really that "sought after" after all these years? And what's the statute of limitations on these recordings? I know on music recordings it's "50 years from their initial release". Would these rare recordings be public domain in the next 10-15 years?
I, in no way, mean disrepect to the traders participating in this thread. Like I said earlier, I bought the Freddie box and smiled a bit when I saw a few of your names in there. Without you, that box would not have been possible. But aren't we crossing a line a bit here when the artists have no say in what is going on with their recordings? They performed the material... aren't they entitled to anything? If someone bought a recording from the sound board from a live engineer, no matter how much they paid, why do they feel they have exclusive rights to it? Why does QPL have to buy a Hangman Acetate... if that indeed happened? Just because John S Stuart (an example here) paid good money for a recording made by a band, why is the band not entitled to that? I just ask out of curiousity... this is one aspect of the business that I'm not very familiar with but it is very interesting.
*munches popcorn*
*awaits next post*
I've come late to this controversy and have spent a half hour reading threads and getting up to speed. Not that anyone cares what I think, nor should they, but this whole thing is just bizarre to read from the outside. I don't know the personalities involved and I don't know the facts. Speaking generally, anyone who gives his word and intentionally breaks it is pathetic. And all this stuff about the "elites" meeting in secret to catalogue and trade their treasures, away from the eyes of the unwashed little people, and then add to that the whole "oh, well we were just gathering it and cataloging it so we could release it to you when we felt like it, and by the way, please don't feel obliged to thank us for all the stuff we've seen fit to funnel to you through the years - we don't need your praise" - its just bizarre.
I don't remember who it was up thread that said they don't care anymore, but I agree - I don't care about the rarities anymore. If they're ever officially released, and if I'm still alive then, I'll buy them and listen to them. As for what you "elites" are buying and trading and keeping or leaking or whatever you're doing, have fun. Release them, leak them, trade them in secret, hoard them, piss on them, burn them, have yourselves buried with them like an Egyptian pharoah - I really don't care anymore. Its a very low priority in my life. If its a high priority for you - the finding, the keeping, the sequestration - enjoy. Its your precious life you're spending on the endeavor.
Speaking as a collector myself - of Queen memorabilia and many other things - the point of my having my collections is the pleasure and joy they bring me, and that has nothing to do with their monetary value, their scarcity, or how much control I have over who gets to enjoy my treasures with me. That's not how I get my jollies. Your mileage obviously will vary.
"Why does QPL have to buy a Hangman Acetate... if that indeed happened? Just because John S Stuart (an example here) paid good money for a recording made by a band, why is the band not entitled to that?"
It's like that time that George Harrison's red Les Paul was stolen from his house, sold to a guy from Mexico* at Guitar Center - at which point Harrison was made to swap it for another expensive Les Paul and a Precision bass.
The chap had absolutely *zero* legal entitlement to that guitar, but he had the balls to assume that A) just because he'd paid money for it, it was his, and B) he was cheeky enough to try and rip the original owner off. If I'd been George Harrison, I would've arranged the swap and then had 50 strong men turn up at his house and kick the shit out of him.
*This is why I hate Mexicans, re: the thread about Brian hating them.
